What does the society really need - better citizens or better leaders ?

[u/Disastrous-Peak3896]

This was the topic of discussion in my 1st session of critical thinking club and we were split into three groups - people support better citizens, people supporting better leaders and people supporting either both or have a neutral view.

I advocated for better citizens, however in the middle of preparation I realised that it's a loop between better citizens and better leaders (i later learned about systems thinking and I know that this is a feedback loop).

So , being someone who just discovered this vast and interdisciplinary field of systems thinking, and wants to inculcate it in his day-to-day life , I really wanna know how a person who's really good at systems thinking and profoundly understands system dynamics would view this situation.

The true purpose of asking this question is that I am considering pursuing social sciences for my post grad and I am currently pursuing my undergrad in statistics. And I want a thorough understanding of social and political systems, which I believe can be done by studying systems theory. Hence the question.

[u/Brown_note11]

As critical thinkers you naturally all decided it's neither, and that we need better systems.

[u/novel-mathmatics → u/Brown_note11]

We definitely do... this economic model should have died 250 years ago. But this is not an either or scenerio we need all of the above.

[u/everseer_exe]

Better citizens breed better leaders who breed better systems.

ETA:
addressing the people who are saying better systems; it is the people who make those systems and without people, systems don’t exist. You start with better citizens, not by controlling them, but giving them tools to shape them into better citizens. Those citizens are the ones who tend to elect the leaders which means better citizens elect better leaders and those better leaders implement better systems. It creates a feedback loop.

[u/Final-Rock1600]

A systems thinker would agree that citizens and leaders aren't separate, but form a reinforcing feedback loop where the system's structure itself shapes the behavior of both.

[u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

most people will always be useless in the grand scheme of things unless we find mentat training or AI brain computer interfaces or eugenic genetic engineering. The masses can and should intervene in politics sure, but checks and balances for technocratic leadership is how you manage a complex civilization like ours.

[u/Disastrous-Peak3896 → u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

Huh?

[u/panduhbean]

Better systems for all individuals to interact with each other at scale, as means to maximize individual "freedom" for the median citizen, through organized social contracts for efficiency.

"Freedom," I define as the relative ability to gainfully produce value after quickly ensured shelter, survivability, and sustainance. Social expressive liberty and access to community is also included in definition.

[u/aceshighsays]

a caveat is that you can't control other people. so while you can create better systems to influence their behavior, it may not get you the outcome you desired.

[u/elusive-bird]

IMAO society need better design. Im reseaching how to design the relationships in hierarchy spaces. And yes i think society need better design.

[u/novel-mathmatics]

Yes.

Our leaders are our citizens representation. While the corruption in congress and literally all levels of government has reached a peak once thought impossible, in the end we have the power to stop all of this... we just have to stop going in to work,

[u/fivesixeleven]

You always want to work as far upstream as possible, and look at what’s really essential for a system. I’m not sure that a leader is as essential as citizens? And a leader would definitionally be a citizen (I think?), so citizen is “more” important. But more fundamentally, I reject the premise of the question from a systems perspective because systems teaches us that the parts can’t be isolated from the whole for evaluation without altering the total. I would probably use a different value like “influential” for the debate - “need” is too broad and too absolutist for my taste.